My colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken umbrage with my equation of their ideals with those of communists. Why? Why shouldn’t we have this discussion? What part of their agenda are they trying to hide?

We must be able to openly discuss how our fundamental freedoms are being slowly chipped away by an over-reaching nanny state that has bit by bit slipped its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, from the types of light bulbs we can use to the size of our toilet tanks.

In a follow-up interview with TheStreetTV, West commented that “…when you look at the history of the Communist Party, when it came to the United States of America, back at the turn of the century, they rebranded themselves and called themselves ‘Progressives'”:

Does West’s assertion that today’s Progressive brand is simply an evolution of yesterday’s Communist label hold up? It helps to take a look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The Progressive Caucus includes Democratic party luminaries like Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Jared Polis, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Rep. Danny Davis. The Progressive Caucus also shares several board members in common with Progressive Democrats of America (PDAmerica), which has explicitly stated its support for Occupy Wall Street becoming a permanent encampment.

Progressive Caucus member Schakowsky, profiled in 2011 on Progressive.org, has repeatedly come under fire from her Jewish constituents for her connection with the Progressive Caucus and the Progressive Democrats of America, which supported the Hamas-led flotilla into Gaza. The Progressive brand supports this action against Israel, and for a member of the Caucus it is difficult to walk the line between defending Israel and being affiliated with Hamas’s flotilla.

While Allen West’s assertion may have been met with derision and some uneasiness on both the Left and the Right, his questions as to the origins of the Progressive brand and whether members of the Progressive Caucus share values with communism is worth exploring.

When I was studying for my two master’s degrees in political science at Kansas State University and at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College, the very best professors were those who would begin each lecture with a challenging assertion. It engaged discussion and analysis, and was the best way to uncover the essence of the particular subject of the day.

It is hard to pin down the Progressive brand for at least three reasons. First (and foremost) Progressives are linked by their shared hatred and desire to end the epic experiment in classic liberalism and individual liberty that is America. So that shared desire for destruction is probably the most important shared value.

Second, Progressives do share a deep statist political model. Attempting to distinguish between Communism, Socialism, and Fascism is similar to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In other words, the difference between Progressives on that matter is no difference at all.

Finally, Progressives all wish to benefit from hiding their true natures from the population and, to some extent, from each other. In this way they have “plausible deniability” when someone like West tries to identify them with a well-understood label. Progressives also benefit by hiding their true agendas, which allows them to mischaracterize themselves as “benefactors” and protectors.

What they all most fundamentally are, are narcissists dreaming the great dream of the pathological narcissist; a humanity reduced to playing the roles of either grateful codependent or humiliated enemy. That is to say, grateful victim of deceit, or terrified victim of force.

Archism must engender Collectivism to survive just as the narcissistic ego needs a codependent to help it avoid ever having to face an honest look at itself – at the profound lack of true substance behind the facade it hides behind even from itself. “If others believe my lies, I can believe my lies.”

When the individuals intended to accept codependency start demanding truth, the facade of the narcissist-codependent relationship begins to crumble – and that’s when either they must be made the enemy, a new deception must be formulated, or the narcissist must flee.

My guess is that most progressives are not full-blown Communists, with the Party’s open willingness to use violence and repression. Off the top of my head, Communists : progressives :: murder : manslaughter.

However, I consider them culpably negligent and in culpable denial. As it were, “Marx had some good ideas. Too bad they were never implemented properly.” If America slides into full-blown totalitarianism and the totalitarianism is then rolled back, I would not oppose summary courts for today’s “well-meaning progressive idealists”.

My guess is that most progressives are not full-blown Communists, with the Party’s open willingness to use violence and repression.

But those that call the tune are full-blown totalitarians willing to do whatever it takes, and as with Islam that’s all that matters. So you might as well call the whole lot totalitarian, because ultimately that’s what they are.

I invite progressives to point out areas of human activity that they consider exempt from government oversight. If they do so to my satisfaction, I will withdraw my claim that they are wannabe totalitarians. (Even naming areas of state & local governance that should be exempt from federal oversight would be a start.)

I have been told that not a single person brought before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities on the accusation that they were a communist, was falsely accused. If this is not true, then I’m sure the erudite readers here will correct my misunderstanding.

I studied Russian as an exchange student in the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. At that time the political-economic system was officially known a “developed socialism.” Communism was a goal to be attained sometime in the future. Soviet propaganda frequently used the phrases “progressive forces” or “progressive humanity” specifically to refer to Communist parties throughout the world. While the words were not exactly interchangeable they all were tied to the ultimate goal of communism. If the members of the progressive caucus think the association with communism is wrong, perhaps they should choose their euphemisms more carefully.

Quite right, tomg. And as I stated in another forum just last week, please tell me, exactly, where the agenda of American “progressives” and the Communist Manifesto differ. Just because “progressives” are not using bullets today does in no way indicate that if they could, to implement their goals, that they would not. Unhappily for them, the horrible “normal” people of America remain fixated on the rule of law and Constitutionalism (but not of the “living” kind). If only they could get rid of us, which they’re doing their damnedest to do, btw.

Don’t limit it to skin tone, please! We are all Americans, black, white, etc! I refuse to be pigeonholed to a demographic simply because that is what the MSM/Hollywood/Madison Avenue/politicians demand!

West is performing an incalculably valuable public service, one which NO ONE else on the Washington Right has proved equal to performing in my lifetime. For persisting in his studied provocation of the Left to define itself, to force it to open up a debate as to ideological nature and intentions, West is becoming the greatest overt threat to the Left in America.

This is his key point: “Why shouldn’t we have this discussion? What part of their agenda are they trying to hide?”

They’re trying to hide everything. Dissimulation has been the secret of their success. How is that Reagan could run clearly and proudly as a conservative but no leftist, up to and including Obama, has ever been willing to own, to publicly embrace and defend, the cause and effects of his ideology.

There will be no discussion or debate. The Left and media won’t permit it. West has poked his stick straight into the hornets nest. From here on all you will hear is “McCarthyism!” in a thousand variations and with ever-increasing shrillness.

Go Professor and commenters! When there is no right or wrong, up or down, off or on, one or zero, black or white, life or death, wealth or poverty other than what the party line says it is Satan has convinced you that he does not exist. When Progressive values have deprived you of family, prosperity, happiness, faith, hope and love I pray that the grace God gave you brings you back from the cadre and into the congregation in time, and to testify to others that they may vote out the traitors that have brought us to this state.

The Professor leaves me several relevant threads to plop this down on-

EPA Official: We’re “Crucifying” Oil And Gas Companies…

In their own words…

EPA’s “philosophy of enforcement,” said EPA’s Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, is “kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them.”

“That town was really easy to manage for the next few years,” Armendariz added.

Having read too much Soviet history in my youth I understand that there is no meaning between Progressive and Communist. They change there labels to fit their time. Once they wear out their welcome the just give it a little side step and come up with a new name or an older (lost its meaning) name. Why do you think they adopted the Liberal moniker? At the time Liberal was a well respected label. Once they donned that mantel they started the usual non-liberal crap they have been pedaling as “main stream” ever since. Now, of course, the term liberal has lost its glow so soon they will change their spots but their hearts will still be in the same place. This latest Alan West issue I find incredibly amusing in that West did not name names but they sure are rattled that this might go further. The only problem is had they are giving it legs. As usual, Communists/Progressives/Socialists/International Socialists/Fascists never know when to shut up. This last is for tomg remember when Lenin couldn’t get the Duma, under Karensky, to give his Mensheviks the recognition that they felt was their due? Lenin brought in his followers, packed the observer seats to the Duma, had them revile any speaker that wasn’t one of theirs and ran the session late into the night. When enough of them finally left, after abuse after abuse, Lenin locked the doors and called a quorum. In the second, locked session, he declared that his faction were the Bolsheviks! For the non-russian speakers a menshevik is one from the minority while bolshevik is a member of the majority! So typically progressive, no?

Bill Ayers is a perfect example of these folks. Today he will admit, in certain circumstances, that he is a Marxist, that he “wakes up every day thinking ‘today I will end capitalism'” (I believe that is the correct quote).

He used to be out-and-proud revolutionary, violent anti-Captialist, anti-America bona fide RADICAL. Then, when the Weathermen blew themselves up (literally), and they had to become the Weather Underground, that they FINALLY learned what the Cloward/Piven Marxist, Alinsky-ite crowd had been preaching was correct: stealth and slowly, taking over from within, will be the ONLY way to take down America.

(Yes, it’s in Radical in Chief, if you were wondering. 😉 )

Billy Ayers never changed; he just put on the facade of a mellow, middle-aged (now older) professor. Kinda like Van Jones, a well-know, confirmed Communist, who explained how he traded the outward radical for the effective change (or some such…..it’s been a while).

The communists in a master stroke inoculated themselves against criticism in the McCarthy era. Anyone who calls anybody a communist or criticizes communists or progressives as they call themselves are now immediately branded a McCrthyite. It was a sublime maneuver facilitated by the media including the NYT and CBS. So Fascists are open game – justifiably – but communists are a protected species even though the crimes of communists far exceed those of fascists.

Daily, new films, articles, TV shows, and fiction arrive decrying the terrible behavior and history of fascists. They are reliable boogeymen. Do you see a comparable outpouring regarding the communists?

As for definitions I would think Karl Marx’s basic “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs – “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”) from the 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program would suffice. If you believe that you fulfill the Marxian requirement.